Saturday, December 18, 2010

Radical Feminists Have A Blind Spot

At the 1995 World Conference on Women, First Lady Hillary Clinton said: "It is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights. Human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights, once and for all." Not exactly the Gettysburg Address, but not bad. I checked the other day to see if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the same person who said that. The internet tells me they are one and the same.

A quote from writer Caroline Glick seems to describe an entirely different Hillary, a strange form of feminism, and the beam in everyone else's eye. "If being a human rights activist means attacking the only country in the Middle East that defends human rights, then that means that at the very basic level, the term 'human rights activist' is at best an empty term." She was talking, of course, of Israel, a nation in which women have strongly protected equal rights with men and the guarantee of personal independence and freedom of thought that American feminism can only make grand but meaningless statements about.

Clinton and her master, Barack Hussein Obama, are so busy condemning Israel for permitting Jews to build homes in their ancient capital of Jerusalem that they can't be bothered to notice the abominable state of women in the surrounding medieval states of the Middle East and major parts of Africa. They should ask themselves when the last time was that Israel permitted or encouraged honor killings, forced marriage (usually of very young girls), denial of education to women, restrictions of employment (if any is allowed at all) and the frosting on the cake, female genital mutilation.

At least one former radical feminist has taken a step back and asked why Islamic states allow practices that would be considered barbaric if practiced on animals. But this is about human rights which, according to the old Hillary Clinton, are the same as women's rights, now and forever. Maybe she has decided that being publicly humiliated by her husband on numerous occasions was actually the norm, and maybe she wasn't trying hard enough.

The latest example of radical feminist newthink is their reaction to the arrest of WikiLeaks nutcase Julian Assange. In order to avoid the obvious, the feminazis had to find a way to support the self-proclaimed leftist/feminist without mentioning that he was arrested and released under house arrest for charges of rape. Rather than discuss the matter rationally, or even dispute the charges logically, the feminists rallied outside his jail cell to shout "free Julian," and "justice for Julian," and "don't shoot the messenger." You see, rape is not the issue nor should it be given any attention when the alleged perpetrator is "pursuing freedom of speech."

One radical feminist responded to the Monica Lewinsky scandal by saying that she would service the president sexually if it meant he would keep up the good fight for women's rights. Fellow (fella?) radical feminist Naomi Wolf has followed the same pattern in an even more despicable manner. Says Wolf of Assange: "His only crime was behaving like a narcissistic jerk." Well, I guess a little rape is preferable to genital mutilation. And as Whoopi Goldberg would say, "it wasn't rape rape."

The same people who invented "date" rape (otherwise known as buyer's remorse), thereby cheapening the horrific physical and emotional trauma of the violent crime of rape now think that if there was a rape in the Assange matter, it wasn't so awful because it was committed by a free speech hero. If you can't persuade them with your logic, baffle them with your bullshit. This complete abandonment of principle comes from the same group that applauded radical feminist Andrea Dworkin when she said that all sex with men was rape. How's that for a healthy attitude? But when it comes to real honest-to-God charges of rape, they simply shrug their shoulders and raise their picket signs for freedom of speech. I won't even mention the number of brave men and women in the armed forces and intelligence agencies who will end up dead because of an alleged rapist who is also a supporter of "freedom of information."

Whether Assange is really guilty of rape will be determined in future criminal proceedings. The important issue here is the ongoing ability of radical feminists to condemn every form of sexual contact with men, unless the man is also a crazed leftist. A gang of women and their gelded male fans who see rape around every corner suddenly couldn't care less about the sleazy past and possible violent proclivities of one of their own. Disgusting.

10 comments:

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
I heard the rape charge was brought be a couple of prostitutes who had sex with him and he did not use a condom. Failure to suit up is by their definition rape. I thought rape of a prostitute occurred only if she did not get paid.

Having not read the thousands of released memos I do have a question. Were there military secret and administration strategy memos in the mix? If the worst was stupid off hand comments that caused embarrassment then no great crime. If the former then why hasn't he been indited and extradited already?

StanH said...

Sexism, like racism are liberal buzz words to end debate. The good news, they are being exposed for the utter hogwash that they are. Another false dichotomy delivered to America by the ‘60s.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: You caught the subtlety that the feminists ignored. At one point in the movement, it was a big deal for them to parade prostitutes around with the demonstrators to point out that rape is rape, and even prostitutes can be raped. True enough, but they've conveniently forgotten that during this exercise in paranoia (and free speech). How do you make a hormone? Don't pay her. See--this really is a high-tone blog.

We have to see what comes of the revelations. There are times that the slightest slip of the diplomatic mask can result in war or destroyed alliances, so I don't minimize the damage done in that area. Both strategy and tactics have been included in the memos as well as troop movements, pending deployment, and the names of CIA operatives as well as American double-agents. People are going to die because of some of the information contained in the leaks.

The last I looked, America had a "hold" with the diplomats in France and England and Assange's travel is restricted as America prepares indictments and extradition requests. There will be consequences that even Obama and Holder can't ignore.

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: Well said. As one of my fellow 60s radicals said back in the 90s--"We changed the world all right. We really screwed it up."

I just get more and more annoyed by these gender-confused normality-hating hysterics and their ability to abandon their principles at the drop of a bra if such an abandonment protects a higher leftist goal.

I actually saw a three or four minute clip of this Assange creep for the first time last night. He looks like the albino from Foul Play, only creepier.

Tennessee Jed said...

All salient points, Hawk-- particularly with reference to Hillary Rodham clinton, and the good folks at NOW. Let us not forget, a C.E.O. in corporate world would have been fired and sued for sexual harrassment. And yet, N.O.W.'s response was, to put it mildly, underwhelming. Ms. Rodham-clinton actually was the one who convinced the horn dog-in-chief to fight for his (I mean their) power when he was ready to resign in disgrace.

Oh well, it is as you say, I suppose . . . the blindest of spots.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: Sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Of course to the former charge, Billy Joe Jim Bob Clinton would have responded with "that wasn't sex, it was assault with a friendly weapon."

BevfromNYC said...

One of the reasons that I am an avowed Non-NOW feminist. NOW feminists are very "Animal Farm"-ish with their beliefs with a splash of Stockholm Syndrome thrown in for a lovely hypocrite cocktail. But at the same time completely predictable. They have NEVER been about Women's rights. They are about hating the Establishment (Old White men). In their view, Assange is attacking the Establishment. So it doesn't matter to them whatelse he might have done as long as they can "stick it to the man"...

I am not sure why ANY of this Assange-love should surprise you. Look at the way these same "Equal Rights for ALL Women" NOW'ers have gone after conservative women. They have gone after Sarah Palin and Meg Whitman with the same vengence that men used on Suffragettes and during the '60's.

And you should know by now that it's not rape unless NOW decides it's rape. Otherwise the accusers are part of a conspiracy to bring down those who would "speak truth to power".

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: I agree, all the way around. I never considered having to call myself a feminist because my father taught me how to be a gentleman. That meant courteous, protective with a large dollop of respect for both the equality and difference of women. I've lived most of my life around bright, strong, women. The vast majority of them were as tough and savvy as the men, without losing their best characteristic--femininity. Like all the other egalitarian leftist thinking, feminism requires thinking that normal behavior for one person must be at the expense of someone else rather than understanding that it's the very differences between the sexes that come together to form a stronger bond. I spent enough time in San Francisco around the other type of women--radical feminists--to understand why there are so many gay men in Sodom by the Bay.

AndrewPrice said...

I agree about the feminists, whether or not they consider rape to be "rape" depends on who is accused of being the rapist, and that's ridiculous.

But on Assange, the rape charges are BS. He is accused of "rape" because he didn't tell his partner when a condom broke. That's not rape. I think the authorities need to grow some guts and simply arrest him for the actual crimes he has committed rather than playing this game. All this does is make a hero out of the guy for weak thinkers who want to believe in government conspiracies.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I've heard so many versions already of "what happened" that I'm doubting them all until somebody comes up with some real proof. So far, it's "he said, she said," and we both know that's no ground for a rape conviction. I've heard more often that he lied about wearing a condom at all, which sounds like something this creep would do. As far as the condom breaking, ever since I saw a Showtime special on the Trojan factory, I've been skeptical of that claim. They picked condoms out of the line randomly, then got a dozen large toilet plungers, put the rubber part on the floor, and slammed the condoms all the way down the shafts of the plungers. Not a single one broke, even after ten successive attempts.

And you're absolutely right about the authorities getting off their academic asses and charging this guy with espionage, theft of classified information, and for the American "soldier" who passed the information to him--treason.

Post a Comment